Khadija Ismayilova sat calmly, her face, voice and movements doing nothing to break the composed demeanour with which she recounted the Azeri government’s attempt to completely discredit her as a journalist.

In early March, Ismayilova received a package containing six photos of herself having sex, taken from hidden cameras planted inside her home by unknown persons.

The package contained more than just intimate pictures of the journalist responsible for uncovering cases of corruption within the government – there was a clear message of intimidation, filled with coarse language and insults, meant to deter not only Ismayilova, but anyone else from further investigating the government’s actions.

But Ismayilova has a message of her own. Despite the intimacy of the smear campaign, she went public with her story, in the hopes of embarrassing the government by exposing the illegal means they employ to intimidate journalists and rights activists within the country.

Then a video of the journalist, in the same explicit situation, appeared on a fake mirror website of Azerbaijan’s main opposition party, according to Amnesty International, though party leaders have stoutly denied connections between their party and the website in question.

In a conservative country like Azerbaijan, Ismayilova believes the government hoped to use the video and photographs to discredit her work.

Deadly censorship

She is not the first victim of this crude tactic. Other journalists before her have been subject to public humiliation by sexually explicit images of themselves being aired on television but she is the first to speak out openly about it.

And Ismayilova’s story is only the latest in a string of crackdowns on journalists within the country.

President Ilham Aliyev, who abolished presidential term limits in 2009, has a web of family members in positions of power throughout the country, which has piqued the interest of Azeri journalists working to investigate corruption and probe the reaches of government control.

According to Ismayilova, the president’s cousin runs a television channel that aired images of an opposition journalist masturbating.

For others, investigative journalism has been undertaken not only at the cost of civil rights and liberties, but also their lives. As of March 2012, Ismayilova said seven journalists had been kidnapped, and two more were being held without access to lawyers or contact with family members.

Elmar Huseynov, an Azerbaijani journalist who reported on politics and corruption, was shot to death in the stairway of his apartment building on Mar. 2, 2005. His family reported that the journalist had received threats prior to his death, and feared for his safety.

Seven years later, the investigation is at a standstill, and no one has been brought to justice for the loss of his life. Head of the Central Asia and Europe desk for Reporters Without Borders, Johann Bihr, called the case “a threat that constantly hangs over (journalists, members of the opposition party and human rights defenders)” in an article in ‘Running Scared: Azerbaijan’s Silenced Voices’, a publication from the International Partnership Group for Azerbaijan (IPGA).

“In virtually no case of violence against a journalist since Huseynov’s murder has there been a serious investigation or prosecution for an attack. The result is a climate of fear in which journalists know that, should they decide to criticise the authorities, they are vulnerable to attacks that are either organised or endorsed by officials,” Bihr said.

With concerns over freedom of expression in the country, 10 members of the European Parliament issued a letter to Commissioner Štefan Füle, asking that the government of Azerbaijan and President Ilham Aliyev be “taken to task” to ensure the safety of Khadija Ismayilova and to create an environment that allows journalists and human rights activists to “work free from intimidation, blackmail and violence.”

Freedom of expression

Opposition journalists are not the lone targets of government efforts to muzzle free speech. Citizens have been forbidden from protesting in Baku since 2005 and state forces used harsh measures against activists who took to the streets in March and April 2011, inspired by the Arab Spring.

Ismayilova explained the only freedom of assembly allowed in Azerbaijan is outside the Baku city limits, a half-hour walk from the nearest bus station.

The location is a dismal spot for vibrant political assembly. Ismayilova said, “No one can hear you…You can’t even reach the place.”

Social media is being monitored as well, with several youth activists jailed for promoting the Arab Spring protests on Facebook and Twitter. Parvana Persiyani, a blogger with the ‘OL!’ Youth Movement in Azerbaijan, said organisers of protests against current government policies have been jailed without access to attorneys or notice to their families.

Habbar Savalanli used Facebook to promote public protests surrounding the Arab Spring, and was given a jail sentence of two and a half years on bogus drug charges, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). He was released in December 2011.

According to HRW, Azerbaijan has refused entry to a Council of Europe representative to look into the condition of political prisoners.

Azerbaijan was ranked 143rd out of 183 countries surveyed in the 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index, compiled by Transparency International.

Eurovision 2012

The influx of oil revenues in Azerbaijan has left the country flush with possibility, plans for vast expansion and the modernisation of a city gearing up to host the Eurovision Song Contest this summer, which draws more than 100 million viewers. But such expansion has paved the way for human rights violations, with HRW reporting that the government of Azerbaijan has forced people from their homes in claims of “urban renewal.”

According to HRW, the government of Azerbaijan hasn’t provided fair compensation or alternative housing options to those displaced by the construction projects.

Rasul Jafarov, coordinator of the Sing for Democracy campaign, said apartment buildings have rapidly been demolished, with or without the consent of those living there. Tenants who refused to cooperate faced forcible eviction after being detained for several hours, during which time their homes were destroyed.

While Azerbaijan has committed to granting Eurovision participants freedom of speech, HRW noted that the country systematically denies its own citizens these same freedoms.

But Ulrike Lunacek, a European Parliament member, said that simply boycotting the song contest was not enough – rather, efforts should focus on ensuring information on the state of the country is freely available.

“People in Azerbaijan don’t have access to the truth,” Ismayilova stressed. “And that is the core of the problems in the county.”

As Western forces step up their military presence in Somalia, locals and experts are worried that the country – struggling under multiple crises from piracy, to drought – is doomed to churn in a cycle of violence that fails to acknowledge root causes of the problems.

Making bold moves to curb piracy efforts on the Somali coast, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the European Union have decided to extend counter-piracy missions until the end of 2014.

The EU operation, called Atalanta, has also been extended to include land targets in order to work closely with the Transitional Federal Government and other Somali entities, according to a statement from the Council of the EU – a move that has been widely condemned by experts who believe these attacks will threaten civilian life and undermine anti-piracy efforts.

“Fighting piracy and its root causes is a priority of our action in the Horn of Africa. Despite pressure on defense budgets, EU member states demonstrate their renewed commitment to this successful operation,” EU High Representative Catherine Ashton said in a statement issued Mar. 23.

The announcement came days after Rear Admiral Duncan L. Potts, operation commander for Atalanta, addressed the Subcommittee on Security and Defense and announced it was time for the EU to “tighten pressure on pirates and reach out to Somalis.”

Already, operation Atalanta and NATO’s operation Ocean Shield, along with U.S. maritime forces and other national actors, can tentatively boast a decreased number of pirate attacks.

According to Potts, 2011 can be looked at as a “year of two halves” in terms of EU efforts—during the first half of the year, 28 vessels were commandeered, while the second half of the year saw only three vessels overtaken.

NATO reports decreased pirate activity as well. In Jan. 2011, there were 29 attacks and six ships overtaken, while numbers for Jan. 2012 showed only four attacks, none of which were successful.

Still, there has been widespread criticism over increased security in the country, with many experts arguing that international naval forces simply fuel a cycle of violence and fail to address the root causes of Somalia’s instability.

Others believe the use of violence to defeat piracy is misguided, since illegal fishing and dumping in Somali waters have been exposed as the root causes of piracy as a whole.

Desperate for food

Somalia remains one of the most difficult countries for humanitarian groups to operate in, owing to decades of violence and, in more recent years, a crippling drought that has left thousands dead and millions starving.

According to the World Food Programme, 2.4 million people are in need of assistance in Somalia, roughly 32 percent of the population. Currently, the WFP reaches up to 1.3 million people along the coast of Somalia, as well as in Puntland, Somaliland, and Mogadishu.

The goals of Operation Atalanta, according to the EU Naval Force (EU NAVFOR), include deterring and preventing acts of piracy, protecting shipping off the Somali coast, as well as protecting WFP vessels carrying food to displaced persons.

Thus far, EU NAVFOR reports the successful delivery of nearly 900,000 metric tonnes of food to relief efforts in Somalia, with 145 WFP ships escorted to shore.

The scale of violence has impacted other aid organisations as well, with aid workers often caught in the midst of deadly attacks in their line of work.

Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières or MSF) recently condemned the shelling of the emergency room and surgical ward of Mogadishu’s Daynile Hospital in late March. MSF has worked in the hospital since 2006 as part of the organisation’s 13 operations within the country.

The organisation’s efforts in the Hodan district of the capital were cut in half this January, after two aid workers, Philippe Havet and Karel Keiluhu, were killed.

MSF continues to call for the release of two aid workers, Blanca Thiebaut and Montserrat Serra, who were abducted from the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya in October last year, while providing assistance to Somali refugees.

Disrupting the ‘business model’ of piracy

Most experts are widely agreed on the fact that Somalia’s future depends on treating the “symptoms” of the failed state by eventually curtailing piracy, promoting a stable national government and establishing a robust judicial system.

Potts acknowledged that those who commit acts of piracy are part of the disenfranchised population, driven to the “cash-rich but asset-poor” business of piracy. He described the pirates as “criminals of opportunity” who don’t discriminate based on whatever national flag a ship raises.

Indeed, the fact that the most sophisticated aerial surveillance systems have been unable to take out the modestly equipped pirates is testament to the latter’s economic desperation.

Still, locals are losing tolerance for continued acts of piracy, according to Potts. Efforts to dissuade citizens from falling into piracy include involving clan elders in Somalia, who are poised to get the message across, particularly to the youth.

Alexander Rondos, the EU Special Representative for the Horn of Africa, described a “lost generation” of youth that pays an awful price for piracy.

Potts lamented the EU’s limited ability to properly handle underage suspects of piracy, given the lack of effective legal and rehabilitation systems capable of “processing” these criminal minors.

Cautious Optimism?

When Rondos visited Somalia just hours before addressing the Subcommittee on Mar. 20 he noted that the next several months are absolutely crucial to the country’s future.

He stressed the need for effective judicial systems and institutions that are rooted in the grassroots and affect the needs of local communities.

Efforts cannot rely solely on the “EU and a collection of white people who feel good about helping others,” Rondos claimed, highlighting the need for solutions that include local voices.

Still, Rondos mentioned signs of hope within Mogadishu— he described movements of people returning to the city, investing in day-to-day life and opening new businesses.

Though still a threat, the Somali-based terrorist group Al-Shabaab is beginning to “melt away,” according to Rondos, who added that he observed “indications of a growing number of people affiliated with Al-Shabaab that want to detach themselves” from the outfit, though the core of the group remains active.

With cautious optimism, the importance of providing security for the Somali people remains a priority, Rondos said.

By Bari Bates and - -
BRUSSELS, Mar 19 2012 (IPS)

Decades ago, 15 of Europe’s wealthiest nations made a promise to allocate .7 percent of their respective gross national products (GNP) to official development assistance. Yet despite a commitment that comprises such a small fraction of a nation’s wealth, only a handful of countries are on track to reach this goal by the 2015 deadline.

Among the few leaders who have prioritised this target is Denmark’s Prime Minister Helle Thorning- Schmidt, who was recently celebrated by the confederation of European non-governmental organisations known as CONCORD, together with the ONE Campaign, for Denmark’s aid commitment to help the world’s poorest.

Volunteers and activists donned masks of the Danish Prime Minister’s face on Mar. 16, under the slogan, “Everyone needs a Helle.” The action was designed to spread the message that, if the European Union was comprised of 27 leaders like the Danish Prime Minister, the world would be well on its way to keeping its aid promise to the world’s poor, according to the ONE campaign.

Denmark is one of four EU member states to go beyond the target of .7 percent of GNP, a commitment made in a 1970 United Nations General Assembly Resolution. The commitment has been reaffirmed several times throughout the decades, most notably at the March 2002 International Conference on Financing for Development, as well as in 2005, when EU development ministers met in Brussels and announced the 2015 deadline for the .7 percent target.

It was determined then that the original “EU-15” member states – Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland and Sweden – would adhere to the goal of .7 percent by 2015, while countries that joined the EU after 2002 would create timelines for a .33 percent goal by 2015.

According to AidWatch, a subgroup of CONCORD, only seven EU countries are “on target” to meet the 2015 goals, including Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK.

A recent report compiled by the ONE Campaign analysed international development efforts from the UK, showing exactly what .7 percent of a county’s GNP can do.

The report, “Small Change/ Big Difference”, is an independent study that examined current UK aid commitments, and projected an analysis for the next four years. The UK is expected to meet the .7 percent goal by 2013, contributing 11.7 billion pounds in aid. Broken down, the report explains that, at the targeted percentage, aid will account for 1.6 pence of every pound of government spending.

These abstract numbers tell a much more compelling story when translated into the direct impact pledges make on the ground, such as providing 80 million children with vaccines; allowing access to safe drinking water for more than 17 million people worldwide; providing preventative measures or treatment for malaria to more than 40 million people; providing 633,000 affected people with treatment for HIV; and enabling 15.9 million children to go to school.

And these figures account for the UK’s contribution to global aid efforts alone—if other member states follow through on their promise to contribute .7 percent of their GNP as well, millions more could benefit.

While official statistics for 2011 have yet to be published by AidWatch, a survey taken at the end of last year found that only a few countries from the EU will drastically cut aid, according to Wiske Jult of 11.11.11, a coalition of NGOs based in Northern Belgium, which contributed to the AidWatch report.

Jult explained to IPS that it is difficult to estimate how many countries will meet their targets for the coming year. Part of the problem is incomplete data. Jult said that, despite requests, Greece failed to release data from last year, making it impossible to know whether or not the country is on track to delivering on pledges.

A more comprehensive AidWatch report is expected in June 2012.

In a world thrown into economic chaos since the 2008 financial crash, the pressure is on governments to make tough decisions. With several EU countries leading the way toward fulfilling their .7 percent promises, civil society is calling on remaining countries to continue to work toward the 2015 goals.

“Aid in some countries is under assault from the financial crisis, but cutting back on promises to developing countries isn’t the way out of austerity or unemployment in Europe,” said Olivier Consolo, director of CONCORD.

“EU governments should realise that their aid is precious help for millions of people in desperate need and be proud of the support Europe gives against poverty.”

Excerpt:

Mediterranean coralline algae has a strong, adverse reaction to ocean acidification. Credit: David Luquet/IPS

By Bari Bates
BRUSSELS, Mar 12 2012 (IPS)

Our oceans face a grim outlook in the coming decades. Ocean acidification, loss of marine biodiversity, climate change, pollution and over-exploitation of resources all point to the urgent need for a new paradigm on caring for the earth’s oceans—”business as usual” is simply not an option anymore, experts say.

The extreme rate of acidification – the term used to describe the decrease in ocean pH levels caused by man-made CO2 emissions – has happened before, Carol Turley of Plymouth Marine Laboratory said, a claim that might have been comforting if she hadn’t been referring to the time when dinosaurs died out.

This is a “huge environmental crisis,” she told attendees at an information session at European Parliament this month, addressing challenges and solutions for the world’s oceans months ahead of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20, slated to be held in Brazil in June.

Turley joked that she’s often called the “acid queen” because of her bleak message, though the plight of more than 70 percent of the earth’s surface is not in the least bit humorous.

Each year, the ocean absorbs roughly 26 percent of total CO2 emissions, which have increased by 30 percent since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1750, according to the International Ocean Acidification Reference User Group.

Ocean acidification affects marine life with calcium carbonate skeletons and shells, making them sensitive to even small changes in acidity. Acidification also reduces the availability of calcium for plankton and shelled species, which constitute the base of the entire marine food chain, creating a disastrous domino affect that could wipe out entire ecosystems.

“[The] earth system is truly under the influence of man,” said Wendy Watson-Wright, assistant director general and executive secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

The oceans could be 150 percent more acidic by 2100, she added. This means drastic decreases in yields from fisheries, and mass extinction of marine life.

The world is currently losing natural resources at a rate humans haven’t even begun to describe, she said.

Changing public opinion

Sadly, rallying the public behind the necessity of ocean preservation has proved difficult.

Global attention has largely been focused on the economy, particularly on the latest bout of economic chaos in the United States and Europe.

“Our greatest challenge is to convince citizens that environmental targets (don’t go) against economic progress,” European Union Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki, stressed.

For some, it’s a problem of “out of sight, out of mind,” said Watson-Wright, arguing that people disregard oceans as a priority since they live on land. But even landlocked countries have a great stake in ocean sustainability, she stressed.

With Rio+20, designed to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, only a few months away, it is past time to discuss solutions.

Raphaël Billé, program director for biodiversity and adaptation at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), called for stronger language on environmental goals, in order to improve political momentum in the priority themes articulated by the conference organisers.

He noted that Rio+20 is less than concrete in terms of political agreements, but is an opportunity to assess progress and renew political commitments, in the hopes of paving the way for hard decisions later.

Can Rio+20 be a game changer?

Rio+20 will feature oceans as one of seven themes, which also include food, energy, cities, water, and disasters.

Since the first meeting in Rio 20 years ago, there has been some progress on protections for the oceans, according to UNESCO, which includes decisions made within the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, agreed upon during the Earth Summit in 2002.

Plans for the world’s oceans at Rio+20 are outlined as ten proposals under four main objectives, according to UNESCO’s IOC: taking concrete action to reduce stressors and restore the structure and function of marine ecosystems; support for a “Blue-Green” economy; moving toward policy, legal and institutional reforms; and supporting marine research and monitoring, evaluation, and technology.

The concerns over our planet’s oceans are not new, IDDRI pointed out in an article submitted to the U.N. in early November 2011; most of these problems have been recognised for decades, and, according to the article, “The only way forward is to recognise the overall failure of oceanic governance, to study the successes at hand, and to develop strategies that seriously take both into account.”

The article also mentioned the conflicts between oceanic governance and resistance to make it more sustainable, especially when costs begin to add up.

Though various experts have expressed doubt that the meeting in Rio will yield sufficient results for the planet, activists and scientists alike are turning up the heat on conference attendees to leverage political power at the gathering to make tough, lasting decisions that might give the oceans and their essential ecologies a shot at survival.

Excerpt:

By Bari Bates and - -
BRUSSELS, Mar 7 2012 (IPS)

Foggy details surrounding Europe’s anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) have divided pubic opinion, with activists on one end of the spectrum claiming it to be the end of Internet freedom and the generic drug market, while proponents continue to defend the act as a “modest” agreement to protect Europe’s intellectual property.

Such polar opposite opinions shed light on the essential controversy surrounding the ACTA: the lack of detail in the text leaves broad room for interpretation.

The importance of protecting European Union intellectual property is acknowledged by a broad sector of civil society but whether or not the ACTA is the answer remains to be seen, especially given concerns over how the agreement was negotiated and how it will be enforced.

Currently, the draft text is in the hands of the European Court of Justice, which will rule whether or not the agreement aligns with the rights and freedoms ensured to EU citizens via various treaty standards.

Controversy over the ACTA has unfolded with much drama, including masked protestors taking to the streets in cities all across the continent, culminating in a week’s worth of meetings and forums at the European Parliament during the week of Feb. 27.

When the ACTA’s rapporteur, French parliament member Kader Arif, threw his support behind protestors in late January, it sent a very clear message about the ambiguity of the agreement.

Arif resigned with bold claims that he no longer wished to be part of the “masquerade” of the ACTA, adding that he had encountered political maneuvers designed to rush the agreement through without due consultation of civil society and limited transparency.

The legislation, he said, would not be effective in its intended purpose of tracking those who profit from counterfeiting, and instead open the door to a host of violations of individual freedoms.

Still, the legislation pushed on.

Karel De Gucht, the EU’s commissioner for trade, said turning the ACTA to the European Court of Justice was a necessary step in order to quell rumors and enter a period of informed debate over the agreement.

De Gucht stressed that the ACTA was designed to protect intellectual property, calling it Europe’s ‘main raw material’.

“The ACTA will change nothing about how we use the Internet and social websites today – since it does not introduce any new rules. The ACTA only helps to enforce what is already law today,” De Gucht said.

But a French citizen online advocacy group, La Quadrature du Net, insists De Gucht is lying to parliament members and downplaying ACTA’s far-reaching effects.

“By pretending that ACTA is inoffensive, Commissioner De Gucht is trying to hide the European Commission’s immense responsibility in initiating a negotiation process circumventing democratic arenas,” Philippe Aigrain, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net said.

Implications for generic drugs

Amnesty International is urging the EU to reject the ACTA, lamenting that it would infringe upon generic drug distribution by allowing officials to seize drugs with labels similar to trademarked brands.

Similar labels are used in order to communicate medical equivalence, according to Amnesty, and are an integral component in maintaining faith in the generic drug trade.

Scottish parliament member David Martin voiced his concern over the future of generic drugs as well. Though patents themselves are not included in the text, the ACTA leaves room for border patrols in any given country to mistake generic drugs for counterfeit drugs and seize them, which has happened in the past, Martin said.

De Gucht countered this argument by pointing to the very real threat of the distribution of counterfeit drugs; he said that more than 10 percent of generic drugs are counterfeited, placing people in acute danger of consuming drugs with harmful ingredients.

Widney Brown, the senior director of international law and policy at Amnesty International, called the ACTA a “Pandora’s box of potential human rights violations,” with additional mention of concerns over privacy, freedom of information, and freedom of expression.

Besides NGOs, active citizens have taken a firm stance against the ACTA. On Feb. 28, the European Parliament received a petition representing more than 2.4 million people opposed to the agreement.

Sponsored by Avaaz, an online organisation that works to connect civil society with the political decision-making process, the petition called for Parliament to reject ratification of the ACTA, effectively killing the agreement.

“This is not 1984”

In an address to the European Parliament’s committee for international trade, De Gucht stressed that much of the opposition to the ACTA was unfounded, based on false assumptions about the ACTA and an exaggeration of its harmful effects.

“This is not 1984; this is 2012. The ACTA is not about ‘Big Brother’, it is about solving our economic problems in 2012 and beyond. And in 2012 we have real economic problems that we must take action to solve. The ACTA is part of the solution,” De Gucht said.

But the agreement’s current rapporteur isn’t ready to express similar support. Martin, who calls himself the “accidental” rapporteur, appointed after Arif’s resignation, has labeled himself the ideal man for the job, as his indecision over the agreement allows him to view the whole situation with clarity.

Shadow rapporteur Christofer Fjellner also has hesitations about the public’s response to the ACTA, saying that at least “50 percent” of protests against the ACTA are “myths” while the other 50 percent are legitimate concerns worth examining.

Fjellner pointed specifically to a commonly held fear of unwarranted searches of personal devices, such as computers and MP3 players, which he refuted as “ungrounded”.

Though the Avaaz petition labeled the ACTA the “new threat to the net,” the agreement has actually been on the table since 2007.

Formal negotiations were launched in June 2008, and went through eleven rounds of negotiations before being finalised in November 2010. The EU and 22 member states signed the ACTA on Jan. 26 in Tokyo; but in order to take effect the agreement must be universally ratified by all member states and approved by Parliament.

So far, Germany, the Netherlands, Estonia, Slovakia, and Cyprus have withheld their support.

Countries that have pledged support for the ACTA include the United States, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore.

Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, spoke at an ACTA workshop on Mar. 1, where he argued that open discussions about the ACTA should have taken place years ago, at the conception of the agreement, instead of at a juncture where Parliament only has the power to approve or reject it altogether.

Uncertainties have been enough to halt the decision making process for now. Neither the European Court of Justice nor the European Parliament has been given a deadline, and the process could be stalled for a year or more.

Excerpt:

Foggy details surrounding Europe’s anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) have divided pubic opinion, with activists on one end of the spectrum claiming it to be the end of Internet freedom and the generic drug market, while proponents continue to defend the act as a “modest” agreement to protect Europe’s intellectual property.

Such polar opposite opinions shed light on the essential controversy surrounding the ACTA: the lack of detail in the text leaves broad room for interpretation.

The importance of protecting European Union intellectual property is acknowledged by a broad sector of civil society but whether or not the ACTA is the answer remains to be seen, especially given concerns over how the agreement was negotiated and how it will be enforced.

Currently, the draft text is in the hands of the European Court of Justice, which will rule whether or not the agreement is aligned with the rights and freedoms ensured to EU citizens via various treaty standards.

Controversy over the ACTA has unfolded with much drama, including masked protestors taking to the streets in cities all across the continent, culminating in a week’s worth of meetings and forums at the European Parliament during the week of Feb. 27.

When the ACTA’s rapporteur, French parliament member Kader Arif, threw his support behind protestors in late January, it sent a very clear message about the ambiguity of the agreement.

Arif resigned with bold claims that he no longer wished to be part of the “masquerade” of the ACTA, adding that he had encountered political manoeuvres designed to rush the agreement through without due consultation of civil society and limited transparency.

The legislation, he said, would not be effective in its intended purpose of tracking those who profit from counterfeiting, and instead open the door to a host of violations of individual freedoms.

Still, the legislation pushed on.

Karel De Gucht, the EU’s commissioner for trade, said turning the ACTA to the European Court of Justice was a necessary step in order to quell rumors and enter a period of informed debate over the agreement.

De Gucht stressed that the ACTA was designed to protect intellectual property, calling it Europe’s ‘main raw material’.

“The ACTA will change nothing about how we use the Internet and social websites today – since it does not introduce any new rules. The ACTA only helps to enforce what is already law today,” De Gucht said.

But a French citizen online advocacy group, La Quadrature du Net, insists De Gucht is lying to parliament members and downplaying the ACTA’s far-reaching effects.

“By pretending that ACTA is inoffensive, Commissioner De Gucht is trying to hide the European Commission’s immense responsibility in initiating a negotiation process circumventing democratic arenas,” Philippe Aigrain, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net said.

Implications for generic drugs

Amnesty International is urging the EU to reject the ACTA, lamenting that it would infringe upon generic drug distribution by allowing officials to seize drugs with labels similar to trademarked brands.

Similar labels are used in order to communicate medical equivalence, according to Amnesty, and are an integral component in maintaining faith in the generic drug trade.

Scottish parliament member David Martin voiced his concern over the future of generic drugs as well. Though patents themselves are not included in the text, the ACTA leaves room for border patrols in any given country to mistake generic drugs for counterfeit drugs and seize them, which has happened in the past, Martin said.

De Gucht countered this argument by pointing to the very real threat of the distribution of counterfeit drugs; he said that more than 10 percent of generic drugs are counterfeited, placing people in acute danger of consuming drugs with harmful ingredients.

Widney Brown, the senior director of international law and policy at Amnesty International, called the ACTA a “Pandora’s box of potential human rights violations,” with additional mention of concerns over privacy, freedom of information, and freedom of expression.

Besides NGOs, active citizens have taken a firm stance against the ACTA. On Feb. 28, the European Parliament received a petition representing more than 2.4 million people opposed to the agreement.

Sponsored by Avaaz, an online organisation that works to connect civil society with the political decision-making process, the petition called for Parliament to reject ratification of the ACTA, effectively killing the agreement.

“This is not 1984”

In an address to the European Parliament’s committee for international trade, De Gucht stressed that much of the opposition to the ACTA was unfounded, based on false assumptions about the ACTA and an exaggeration of its harmful effects.

“This is not 1984; this is 2012. The ACTA is not about ‘Big Brother’, it is about solving our economic problems in 2012 and beyond. And in 2012 we have real economic problems that we must take action to solve. The ACTA is part of the solution,” De Gucht said.

But the agreement’s current rapporteur isn’t ready to express similar support. Martin, who calls himself the “accidental” rapporteur, appointed after Arif’s resignation, has labeled himself the ideal man for the job, as his indecision over the agreement allows him to view the whole situation with clarity.

Shadow rapporteur Christofer Fjellner also has hesitations about the public’s response to the ACTA, saying that at least “50 percent” of protests against the ACTA are “myths” while the other 50 percent are legitimate concerns worth examining.

Fjellner pointed specifically to a commonly held fear of unwarranted searches of personal devices, such as computers and MP3 players, which he refuted as “ungrounded”.

Though the Avaaz petition labeled the ACTA the “new threat to the net,” the agreement has actually been on the table since 2007.

Formal negotiations were launched in June 2008, and went through 11 rounds of negotiations before being finalised in November 2010. The EU and 22 member states signed the ACTA on Jan. 26 in Tokyo; but in order to take effect the agreement must be universally ratified by all member states and approved by Parliament.

So far, Germany, the Netherlands, Estonia, Slovakia, and Cyprus have withheld support for the pact.

Countries that have pledged support include the United States, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore.

Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, spoke at an ACTA workshop on Mar. 1, where he argued that open discussions about the ACTA should have taken place years ago, at the conception of the agreement, instead of at a juncture where Parliament only has the power to approve or reject it altogether.

Uncertainties have been enough to halt the decision making process for now. Neither the European Court of Justice nor the European Parliament has been given a deadline, and the process could be stalled for a year or more.

(END)

Behind closed doors, a trade deal affecting a fifth of the world’s population has been quietly in the works for years.

The EU-India FTA could kill the generic drug market despite the fact that generic competition lowers medicine prices by 90-99 percent. Credit: Erich Ferdinand/CC-BY-2.0

But while details of the free trade agreement (FTA) between the European Union and India remain ambiguous to the general public, concerns continue to mount over the effects such a deal could have on an unsuspecting third party: the affordable drug market of the developing world.

Negotiations have been underway for five years, with details on issues such as India’s generic drug market sending delegates from both the EU and India through multiple rounds of deliberations in the hopes of settling on an FTA that would be “mutually beneficial and sustainable”, especially given Europe’s current economic climate.

Finally, the five-year ordeal seems to be moving toward a conclusion, according to the European External Action service.

The latest EU-India summit took place on Feb. 10 and was hailed by José Manuel Durão Barroso, president of the European Commission, as a “significant step forward.”

The European Union is already India’s primary trade partner and largest source of foreign direct investment (FDI), according to Barroso.

EU-India trade doubled from 28.6 billion euros in 2003 to more than 67.9 billion euros in 2010, while EU investment has tripled to three billion euros since 2003.

Barroso says the final agreement will be reached in the fall of 2012 and, if passed, would signal the implementation of the largest trade agreement in the world, opening the doors for research and innovation, job creation, and countless business opportunities.

But experts and activists are fiercely opposed to the deal, which they say will stunt the availability of affordable medicine in the developing world.

“Hands off our medicine”

These concerns aren’t new; the issue has been on the radars of several organisations for years, with growing concerns over how the trade agreement is being reached and what it means for organisations who work to supply low-cost medicines to those in need.

As the FTA has evolved, certain measures such as data exclusivity have been taken off the table, though other potentially harmful provisions remain.

Initial opposition to the trade deal centered on issues of intellectual property rights and market access for large European businesses, with the not-for-profit group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) at the helm with a petition to halt the trade agreement altogether.

The petition had the signatures of over 100 organisations as of December 2010, just prior to the 11th EU-India summit.

One of CEO’s biggest concerns is that new trade rules could stall the distribution of generic drugs, thus keeping patented medicine prices high and increasing the overall cost of healthcare for households. According to Oxfam International, generic competition lowers medicine prices by 90-99 percent.

Most significantly, generic competition in India has lowered prices for first line antiretroviral drugs to 100 dollars per year for a single patient, down from 10,000 dollars just 10 years ago for the same treatment.

Doctors Without Borders (known by its French acronym MSF), an independent international medical humanitarian organisation that delivers emergency aid, has also been steering opposition to the FTA’s impact on generic drugs.

The organisation’s campaign called for Europe to keep their “hands off our medicine” and issued a statement outlining risks associated with the widening net of enforcement provisions, which have serious implications for the availability of medicines.

If certain enforcement provisions related to intellectual property are included in the FTA, they could give large pharmaceutical companies the right to sue not only generic drug manufacturers but also generic drug supplies and customers, MSF said.

Such measures could deter treatment providers from buying or supplying generic drugs, leaving the far more expensive brand drugs as the only option for people in desperate need.

The organisation rallied in New Delhi on Feb. 10 along with HIV-positive community members to call attention to the remaining provisions in the FTA that put the generic drug market in serious jeopardy.

Nearly 2,000 people strong, the protests included remarks from Unni Karunakara, the president of MSF, who proclaimed, “We have watched too many people die in places where we work because the medicines they need are too expensive. We cannot allow this trade deal to shut down the pharmacy of the developing world.”

Given that Europe posits itself as a world leader in development aid, the potential hypocrisy of the situation isn’t lost: if these provisions are, in fact, included in the FTA, the EU stands to undermine its own large-scale aid efforts by limiting access to life-saving medications.

Besides the petition, CEO also launched legal action against the European Commission early last year, claiming that corporate lobby groups were given privileged access to information on the EU-India trade talks.

The organisation alleged that 17 documents were released to industrial players but withheld from CEO because it would “undermine the EU’s international relations.”

CEO requested the documents in order to monitor the trade deal, which the organisation believes leans much heavily towards the interests of large corporations at the expense of trade unions, NGOs and small enterprises.

CEO’s Pia Eberhardt said that she expects a hearing within the first half of this year, though no formal date has been set. From that point, it will take roughly six additional months to reach a conclusion.

But while the case circles the justice system, the FTA could slip through the cracks.

Dozens of European Union-funded projects across several countries are ‘environmentally or socially unsound’, according to a map created by a joint effort between CEE Bankwatch Network and Friends of the Earth Europe.

Released Feb. 2, the map counted 33 ventures backed by the EU’s cohesion policy funds – either projects already funded or under consideration for funding – totalling 16 billion euros.

The map highlighted projects in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Macedonia, Poland and Slovakia, which have been found to be particularly damaging to local biodiversity, to the future possibility of sustainable efforts and to human communities.

Twelve of the 33 projects studied were found in the Czech Republic, the highest number of harmful projects in any country.

These included plans for an incinerator in the East, where air pollution levels are already among the highest in Europe, which would “undermine EU targets for a 50 percent recycling ratio,” as well as undercut efforts to reduce municipal waste as a whole.

Other projects, including several expressways, would infringe on Natura 2000 sites – areas across Europe that have been deemed by the EU to be ‘valuable’ by virtue of their wildlife and protected species’ habitats.

Some EU ventures are listed as being categorically vague in terms of effectiveness, such as the construction of a 32-kilometre stretch of motorway between Demir Kapija and Smokvica, which would cut through an unspoiled forested area and be placed beside the protected Demir Kapija gorge.

The gorge is one of the “richest ornithological reserves in Europe, and the project would damage many (bird) habitats and ecological corridors,” according to the report.

EU funding for this project currently totals 258 million euros.

The map warns, “In an era of scarce public resources, every cent of EU taxpayer money must contribute to the shift of Europe’s regions towards the right track of sustainability.”

Local reactions

Representatives from projects underway in Estonia and Bulgaria attended the launch of the map in order to bring local and personal perspectives of the impacts of two particular projects under the watchdogs’ microscope.

Peep Mardiste, a policy expert from the Estonian Green Movement, drew attention to Saaremaa Island, where a seven-kilometre bridge is under consideration for EU funding. He called the bridge a “luxury project” that was neither economically nor environmentally sound.

Home to a population of 40,000 people, Saaremaa also plays host to scores of tourists, who are ferried to the island on an hourly basis. Mardiste argued that instead of building a bridge that would tear through a Natura 2000 site, a more frequent ferry would be a better option.

He said that the project represented governments’ lost sense of “reality.”

Genady Kondarev, a clean energy campaigner from Bulgaria, shared a story of waste management in his home country.

The Sofia Waste Management project calls for the “construction of a landfill, small compost facilities and a mechanical-biological plant that will produce refuse-derived fuel for burning in distant cement kilns,” according to the report.

The problem with such a venture is that it locks Bulgaria into a waste management system that is systematically below recycling percentage goals for Europe. Kondarev called it a “hungry monster” that would need to be fed for years—decades, even—in order to pay out on the initial investment to build the facility, meaning that Bulgaria would lose the opportunity to invest in more sustainable methods of waste management in the meantime.

Room for improvement?

This year’s map is the fourth of its kind to be released by the watchdog team, following a similar undertaking in 2009.

Markus Trilling, EU funds campaign coordinator for CEE Bankwatch Network and Friends of the Earth Europe, said that the projects included on this map are just a portion of those that may be harmful in an environmental or social way.

Criteria for being present on the map included projects that specifically breached environmental legislation, damaged Natura 2000 sites, and displaced local people.

“The map exists to (provide) room for improvement,” said Xavier Sol, EU funds assistant for CEE Bankwatch Network, as well as to illustrate how the cohesion policy can be used in a harmful way. With the EU’s seven-year budget plans looming over 2012, the map follows a report released in October 2011 by the two monitors, outlining recommendations for ways to best utilise the cohesion policy.

The report, “Funding Europe’s Future“, outlines goals to “shift Europe’s regions on to a sustainable development path – Structural and Cohesion Funds have a vital role to play in tackling climate change, stopping biodiversity loss and reversing the trend of resource- overconsumption.”

The report includes a call for the European Commission to be transparent in its budget and include the public in decision-making and the disbursement of funds via projects and programming.

“These (harmful) projects are mistakes Europe cannot afford to make,” Trilling said. “Courageous action is needed to overturn the legacy of bad planning and realise the beneficial potential of EU funds.”

If the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) had 1.28 billion dollars it could help 97 million people around the world.

UNICEF's funding shortfall could leave millions of children like these searching for a living in garbage. Credit: Ashfaq Yusufzai/IPS

It could relieve five million drought-affected children in Ethiopia, give 360,000 children in Kenya access to quality education and treat 16,000 children for acute malnutrition in Madagascar. It could provide 2.2 million Somalis with safe drinking water and give a million children in the Republic of South Sudan basic health care.

And those figures are for Eastern and Southern Africa alone, just two regions of the world that UNICEF aims to reach.

Sadly, the U.N. agency secured less than 50 percent of its funding in 2011, suggesting that it will meet only half its expected goals this year.

Each January UNICEF releases its Humanitarian Action for Children report, which identifies children around the world in the most acute need of aid as a result of humanitarian emergencies – be they “natural disasters, human conflicts or chronic crises.”

The report is rife with pictures of children clinging perilously to survival; high-resolution images depict the protruding ribcages of malnourished boys and girls and the harsh realities of whole populations that are slowly starving to death.

Everything about the report is a desperate call for help. But help comes at a price, which, in this case, is a high one.

Released this year on Jan. 27, the appeal – 80 pages long and spanning 25 countries across seven regions – called for 1.28 billion dollars in aid, and breaks each country’s needs into categories such as nutrition, health, water sanitation and hygiene, education, child protection, HIV/AIDS and others.

UNICEF initially appealed for 1.4 billion dollars to be dispersed among 38 countries but revised its request mid-year to account for unprecedented crises like the famine in the Horn of Africa, among other disasters.

According to the report, 44 percent of funding for 2011 was funneled into the Horn of Africa, for which UNICEF activated its highest level of emergency response.

Meanwhile, other countries present new and equally dire needs. For example, UNICEF has appealed for more than 289.1 million dollars for Somalia in 2012, the largest funding requirement for a single country. The organisation has also called for 143.9 million dollars for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and 98.1 million dollars for Sudan.

The report adds that, as of October 2011, UNICEF had only received 48 percent of its projected needs, amounting to 854.7 million dollars, for all its humanitarian activities. Final numbers for the entire year are expected to be higher, but only moderately so.

For UNICEF, this means making heart-breaking decisions about which children to provide with life- saving services.

“Sadly, we never really (manage) to respond to all of the humans that are in need,” Marika Hofmeister, an emergency specialist at UNICEF told IPS.

Though a depleted resource pool is a setback for any organisation, a dearth of funding for UNICEF will have particularly severe repercussions, some bordering on disastrous for at-risk populations.

For example, South Sudan received just 36 percent of its projected needs last year, leaving its goal of providing 500,000 people with clean drinking water only partially met. Over 130,000 were excluded from planned supply since many water schemes could neither be rehabilitated nor constructed on the agency’s limited budget.

Meanwhile, armed with just 18 percent of its expected funding for the region, UNICEF’s plan to provide 75,000 children in the Philippines with schools supplies that had been lost or damaged due to floods failed woefully, leaving over 50,000 students without supplies.

Madagascar, Uganda, Congo, Iraq and Iraqi refugees, and Tajikistan were among several countries that received less than 10 percent of their planned funding, according to an October 2011 report.

Despite funding shortfalls, UNICEF reported helping millions of people worldwide during 2011, including providing de-worming, vitamin A supplementation and vaccinations for more than 36 million children; treating 1.2 million children for acute malnutrition; providing nutritional support for 19 million women and children; providing access to sanitation and hygiene facilities and safe drinking water for 16 million people and providing access to improved education for four million children.

Funding for UNICEF runs in two parallel streams, one of which contributes to development and programming for the achievement of long-term goals, while the other focuses on humanitarian action. Country offices have some “wiggle room” to divert funds from one stream to another, depending on specific needs.

Hofmeister explained this allows for flexibility in the event of an emergency.

“The import part is to strike the balance between huge emergencies that draw media attention… and the “silent emergencies” that very rarely hit the media and go unfunded for years and years,” Hofmeister said.

However, UNICEF’s efforts are not universally applauded.

In a Jan. 18 report entitled, “A Dangerous Delay“, Oxfam and Save the Children argue that governments, the U.N., NGOs and private donors need to change their approach to drought situations by “managing the risks, not the crisis.”

Referencing the famine in the Horn of Africa, the report claims, “It is clear that the opportunity to avert a crisis was missed.”

Oxfam and Save the Children further noted that the drought and subsequent famine, which has impacted 13 million people, displayed clear warning signs that indicated an impending crisis, including clues from measured rainfall and weather conditions linked to La Niña.

“If an early response had saved even a small proportion of these lives, then thousands of children, women and men would still be alive,” the report stated.

Hofmeister refuted the claim, asserting that unexpected disasters often lay waste to even the best laid plans.

UNICEF’s Global Support section in the funding requirements for 2012 – appealing for 21.9 million dollars – aims to scaffold a degree of preparation against such uncertainties by maintaining a reserve pool of funds that is not earmarked for a particular country or cause, but can be drawn upon for severely under-funded areas.

But this measure, too, is contingent on fund-raising. Last year, Global Support obtained only three percent of projected total funds.

As of October 2011, UNICEF’s 10 largest donors had contributed 74 percent of total donations, according to the report. The European Commission stood as the largest contributor, with 115.8 million dollars, followed by the government of the United States at 98.2 million dollars, the Japanese government with 97.4 million dollars and the U.N. Central Emergency Response Fund with 97.1 million dollars.

Hofmeister said that UNICEF is encouraging donors to increase or maintain their commitments, in order to protect the basic rights of women and children.

“We are aiming for 100 percent funding, (which is) the only way we can achieve the results that we have planned,” Hofmeister stressed.